"Just the facts ma'am" sounds archaic and cliché-ish, but is critical to evaluate a position, idea or statement based on the facts. Sound bites, clichés, emotional charges, and personal opinion run amok whenever there is a political race for the presidency. Consequently, these very elements obscure the precious essential facts surrounding our candidates. Whatever ideas you have, whether they are economic, public or foreign policies, etc., you have to evaluate them to see if they carry serious consequences to the christian worldview.
However, this process is rendered useless when there a false dichotmy between what is rendered to Cesar and what is rendered to God. This could be largley due to the misunderstanding between the separation of church and state ideology in general and Christian naivette in particular. As I have mentioned before, Artistotle's remarks about what is virtuous or right is found in moderation; and while on one extreme we have a Christian nation (Theocracy) and on the other we a striclty secular one (false humility, isolationist), I think that our interaction with politics should be specifically that, interacive. Interactivity is the middle ground between isolationism and dominionist ideas. Now, how much this influence should be and what it contains are subject matters that could be further developed.
Nevertheless, we must recognize that many ideas have consequences and we would be amiss to think that these ideas could become part of a political candidate and not have any effects whatsoever on his constituents. While all candidate have ideas that carry some effect on any particular religious belief, let us take a look at one of them to see how his specific ideas about ethics, religion and politics play out when analyzed through the lens of a Christian worldview. This is where Apologetics Resource Center comes in. I think that Craig Branch does a very good job of pointing out specific differences between the Mormon (Mitt Romney) & Christian worldview and the impact it has on us as Christians. I invite you to spend some time and read the article carefully, especially when it comes to the statistics. Let me point out some notable quotes from this article to wet your appetite:
…But along came Jerry Falwell and The Moral Majority. Conservative Christianity and conservative politics became a major focus of time and hope for Christian influence in culture. The concept has some legitimacy. There has been a neglected theological dimension of the role of the Church or believers as activists in shaping our culture. It is important to note that the baseless cliché, “you can’t legislate morality,” is without merit. All laws and ethics are based on someone’s morality.
So Christians work to influence lawmakers and even to become lawmakers, but not to make the country into a Christian theocracy. Our first priority is to see people converted to Christ via the gospel and to prioritize the spiritual kingdom, realizing that the Law can restrain evil (and provoke it) and can have some positive effect on the consciences of image bearers of God, but cannot convert people. Our priority and ultimate goal in the Kingdom is to make disciples of Jesus Christ, minister to those truly in need, and to promote mercy and justice. Our ultimate and proximal trust is in the triune God – not the Republican or Democratic parties.
To complicate the issue more, there are a number of evangelicals who have openly stated that Romney’s faith should not be a factor. Chuck Colson, Ralph Reed, Southern Baptist leader Richard Land, and others have all said, “We are electing a Commander-in-Chief, not a Pastor (or theologian)-in-Chief.” Incredibly Pat Robertson had Romney come to Regent University to give the Commencement address last year! Fundamentalist Bob Jones III of Bob Jones University endorses Romney. The Roman Catholic conservative talk show host, Sean Hannity naively proclaimed that since Romney said he accepts Jesus Christ as his personal savior, it should be enough.
But it is precisely because of these perspectives that we need to seriously discuss this issue. Let’s take a moment to lay some foundations and to clarify and define the issues for this controversy.
You can also look at Ray Ciervo's excellent article on the same issue here
tags: Apologetics Resource Center Craig Branch Mitt Romney Mormonism presidency religion Worldviews
In this piece Obama clarifies his beliefs as well as some clarification as to whether he was a muslim or not. It seems that religion and immigration will be the deciding factors in this election. The Q & A was conducted by Christianity Today and it is found here: Q&A: Barack Obama
Here is a quote:
tags: Church Democrats faith Islam Muslim Obama Politics StateEvangelicals have come to believe often times that Democrats are anti-faith. Part of my job in this campaign, something that I started doing well before this campaign, was to make sure I was showing up and reaching out and sharing my faith experience with people who share that faith.
The confusion of our faith and politics affords us continuous errors. After listening to Mitt Romney’s speech, some people are impressed. He compared himself with JFK and his speech when he ran for president. JFK made the point that he was not a “Catholic running for president. He was an American running for president who happened to be a Catholic. Romney followed suit. He claimed he is not a Mormon running for president, but an American who happened to be a Mormon. His major appeal was to the Christian right. Although Romney didn’t say anything controversial, he did obscure some very important facts about his Mormon beliefs. I don’t believe he was trying to be deceptive, but he used terms that would “acceptable” to Christian listeners. He referred to the “founding fathers” which is an acceptable buzz word for Christians. He definitely got in line with the Christina arguments for a moral society. But, there were some tricky points in his speech which may go unobserved or uninterpreted.
First, let’s lay things out in a more apparent way. Mormonism began as a cult and has grown into a “folk-religion.” It may well be that Mormonism is America’s folk-religion. When Joseph Smith received his “revelation” it was to announce that the church had altered the Scriptures, had left the religion of the apostles and prophets and that he was chosen to restore it. He was the undisputed leader of the new cult that broke away from traditional Christianity. Smith was an authoritarian leader that banded together his followers who sought a place to carry out their new revelation. Mormonism refined its beliefs through the years, at least the ones that were clearly offensive, like bigamy.
Some Christians were impressed that Romney declared that he believed Jesus to be the Son of God and the savior of mankind. This is very Christian-like. However, Mormons have said that for a while. Jehovah witnesses will say similar statements. What Mormons will not say is that Jesus Christ is God’s unique Son. Nor will they say He is God, the Son. Mormons have always asserted that Jesus is the Savior of Mankind, but they do not believe that he died for you personally. His redemption is kind of a corporate redemption that is only available to those who walk the Mormon path. They also believe that Jesus was pre-existent as a “spirit baby” and the brother of Lucifer. We don’t have space to go into the “special under garments” nor the need to get married in the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City. Mormons do have some different beliefs than orthodox Christians.
It’s amazing what some Christians will accept. To many the statements Romney made sounded authentic. But, this is where the confusion lay. Because someone is a Mormon doesn’t make him a bad candidate for president. Nor, should it be the test whether he will be a good president. Mormons are moral, for the most part. However, I can’t categorically say that any Christian candidate will be moral either. If morality is the issue, we ought to make that the issue. There was a muddying of the waters in Romney’s speech that may pave the way for him to become the Republican candidate. The problem will be if he’s accepted because of his allusion to Christian beliefs.
Romney’s hurdle is to garner support from the Christian voters – he’s looking for the conservative right’s Christian voting block. Pundits like Pat Buchanan have given Romney’s speech high marks. But Pat Buchanan is the poster child for Libertarian Christianity, not exactly the center of the stream. Buchanan aside, the other apologists have not have not sounded off. They’ll be others who criticize what he said, more than I have.
Here’s what Romney did in his speech. He alluded to a pseudo-Christian faith in his statements about Jesus. He then picked up the argument of fighting the secular left. This was a smart move, very smart. The knee-jerk Christians, whose faith has been politicized, will rally right behind him. Not a bad political move, not at all.
Here’s the downside of it for Christianity: Romney becomes president and people look at Mormonism in a new light. Mormons can’t be that bad, look at Mitt. Romney will secure Mormonism as America’s folk-religion. Mormonism is spiritual enough to satisfy many.
I know people will misunderstand my next statement. However, I’ll try to make this as clear as I can. I don’t have a problem with Romney running for president. Nor do I have a problem with him becoming president. But please, leave my Christianity alone. It’s muddy enough with all the press it gets. It’s muddy enough with the politicized mumbo jumbo of pundits who don’t understand the Scripture and use it for their own political prowess.
Aside from my own consternation about my faith, this ought to be interesting to watch as it plays out. Romney’s ploy to talk about his faith will prompt a response from Mike Huckabee. This ought to make things interesting, really interesting in the coming months.
tags: Christianity Joseph Smith Mitt Romney Mormonism presidency Pseudo Christian faith
